As a professional libertarian ;-) and amateur Constitutional scholar, I confess I don't see an "Article 3.5 Other Branch of Government". I think I agree: Congress has no power to create an "independent" agency -- it has to go under one of the three.
I also think that Madison etal. would have strenuously objected to the idea of an agency of government with any significant powers that was not subject to the control of the other three. For all their distrust of democracy, I think they would have distrusted an entrenched administrative state -- outside popular control -- even more.
Look - I hate --- no, I FEAR -- how strong our federal government is. But to act like this power wasn't built up by both parties, starting at least as far back as FDR, is to ignore history. Do I want Trump with massive powers? No. But neither do I want independent agencies with those powers. I want those powers curtailed, eliminated, and returned to the states and the people.
Ross and Glenn politely wonder what the president's intention might be, as if they are speaking about an educated person with a rational plan. I suggest that the two of you are too polite to publicly acknowledge what has been unfolding in front of our eyes since 1980. There is an abundance of evidence to tell you exactly what the intention is. Self enrichment, ego gratification, and domination. Any human being that cannot see the abundance of this evidence has no eyes.
Concurrent with these intentions are blaming all failures upon other people.
Sadly, the political process will be too slow to save our nation from the malevolent steamroller that we've seen in operation for 100 days. Half of the country was stupid enough to say "what the hell, let's give him another shot, he was on TV after all!"
The nation may never recover, and the national and international economies will likely not recover in our lifetimes. So you guys go ahead and be polite with one another and employ all of the euphemisms you can muster and let's all witness history in the making.
To Glenn’s comment that Trump told people what he was going to do and people voted for him, my 78 yr old Mom and Aunt - intelligent, not former factory workers (an RN and mid level manager) voted for Trump, again, did not do any deep thinking about anything you folks are talking about. Their oft- expressed concerns: price of eggs/inflation, transgender bathrooms, and a handful of other Fox and newsmax talking points. Now Mom is worried about her SS and Medicare. Still no loss of faith in Trump or MAGA.
Glen, While I’ve come to appreciate your voice on many issues and respect your willingness to be vulnerable by going public, today’s podcast was annoying at best. Your anguish about “how did we get here” really ticks me off. Yes, there were legitimate issues that could cause one to doubt the democrats, but in my view, a significant reason for “ how we got here” is because influential people like you and republicans in congress didn’t speak up when the lies about voter fraud were being embraced, immigration concerns misrepresented, and the extremes of Project 2025 talked about. While many, many people were predicting this chaos, you were quite proudly, in your words, “rolling the dice.” I’ve grown to respect you a lot, but for heaven’s sake, take some responsibility for your contribution about “how we got here.”
When an expert (PhD) keeps bringing up "uncertainty" it tells me he admits that whatever he learned in earning his PhD, that learning did not help him in dealing with this "uncertainty". In plain English his PhD is worse than useless.
I started taking notes at the beginning but I gave up - the dude was not prepared. Does he talk that haltingly in his classroom (if yes, I would walk out and withdraw from the course.)
Mr. Levine talks of all the risks with mentioning the extraordinary debt left by the previous administration. We have been “rolled” the last 30yrs. On trade. I’m very pleased we are calling in our chips!
I am willing to give our institutional economics/financial experts all the credit they deserve. But I am not willing to let them get away with putting the responsibility for their decades of fiscal mismanagement on Trump. Our economy was headed over the cliff before Trump took office the first time. Trump is the first person in DC to NOT kick the can down the road.
When you are racing toward a cliff, jamb on the brakes! Trump gets that. The plethora of inbred experts stomping on the gas pedal do not.
What cliff was our economy headed over? Do you mean the debt? Because if so, that is really just the last 25 years, and Trump has not done and has no plans to actually do anything to reduce it.
My point was if it has been a problem for a mere 25 years we can fix it. I don’t think that Congress has even once in that time followed the budget process and passed each of the budgets on time. I believe Congress, as the appropriators, should do their jobs.
I don’t know if you remember this, but under Obama we tried to get the budget under control for a minute. But it will probably mean cutting spending and raising taxes and that is very unpopular.
I saw a breakdown that I thought was illustrative. The debt is primarily from Bush’s tax rebates, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, dealing with the banking crisis, Trump’s tax cuts and Covid spending, (and then the Chip act and the inflation Reduction Act, though they were *actually* supposed to pay for themselves for the most part over time). So, that means our debt is wars, tax cuts, and handouts in a crisis (a high percent to rich companies at the expense of the little guy.). Meanwhile the number of billionaires has increased ridiculously.
Our debt is now pretty much what it was after WWII as a percent of GDP. We should go back to 1950s tax rates, where the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90%. The 1950s was a pretty good time economically for your average Americans. But instead… Trump wants to cut taxes to the richest Americans, slash the Government's investments in the future, destabilize trade and banking, etc.
And in any event it is Congress who needs to fix this, not the President.
We were hugely in debt after WWII. We had just fought the most expensive war ever; all expense, no income. To say that we are no more in debt now than we were then is to say that we have way too much debt. But WWII was a good reason to go into debt. We have no such excuse now. It's just horrid mismanagement.
Trump's tax legislation lowers taxes to all Americans. No honest person has ever told you different. If it doesn't pass, YOUR taxes will go up.
Apparently, you aren't aware that the Inflation Reduction Act was a BIDEN law, and its directly responsible for Biden's 25% inflation during his term. Not Trump, Biden.
As for "...slashing the Government's investments in the future...", are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Is the problem that the government overspends, or that it doesn't spend enough? Do you think that spending money is automatically the same as a good investment? Our increased standard of living is a direct result of private investment, and only a little of government investment. That tells me that we should keep as much money in the private sector as possible.
Investments are good, some spending is an investment, some is just spending. I am willing to spend or even borrow to make investments. I don’t think across the board tax cuts (that you benefit more from if you pay more in taxes.) count as an investment.
I’d be happy to pay more in taxes to be in better fiscal shape.
In a sense, all spending is an investment. If you buy a pair of socks, you are supporting the company that makes socks, and they are paying employees to make them.
Somehow you seem to think that governments accomplish more with the money they collect on taxes than people could or would do with their own money if the government hadn't taken it. Based on what? In my decades of experience, nobody wastes money like governments waste money.
Doesn’t he plan to extend tax cuts? And with rates going up to compensate for the incremental risk US is viewed as accruing that will add massively to the debt. So Trump is doing 2 things that are going to vastly increase the debt. So please explain how he is doing something about the debt.
One more time, economics is not a zero sum game. If I hand you ten dollars, that is a zero sum: ten dollars before and ten dollars after.
But if I use my ten dollars to buy materials to create something that is worth twenty dollars, then I have, in essence, created money. I have turned ten dollars into twenty dollars.
That is what free markets and capitalism strive to do. It doesn't always work according to plan, but the only reason we are as wealthy as we are is because of that concept. Don't think you're wealthy? Check on what life was like before the industrial revolution. Average people today live better than rich people then.
Money paid in taxes is notoriously wasted on zero sum transactions, while money kept in free markets multiplies money better than any other system that has ever existed.
Will Trump's efforts be fantastically successful? We'll see. But I see them working far better for everyone than the governmental economic 'system' that has put every one of us in over $100,000 dollars in debt.
p.s. Historically, when taxes are reduced, the economy advances, and even governments get more money. If that seems impossible to you, you've had the wrong econ teachers.
That was not my point. If you were focused on the debt, which I thought was your or a min focus, that’s about to go up by what T is proposing. If that is you main concern, his proposals are not likely to satisfy you.
Thank you for the comment about chickens. Also, thanks to your guest for bringing in the woke angle. These things are all related and that’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s an observable demonstrable fact. in fact the woke agenda is used to create a sense of inadequacy and guilt against which larger government can be enacted in order to soothe that guilt and open borders bring in more people that the left can label as victims and also future voters. Also, if you have another one of these discussions, perhaps you and your guest could talk about the whole policy. The treasury secretary lays out very clearly. The tariffs are one part of the strategy that tax relief, cheap energy, etc., are part of an integrated strategy. Every Show or podcast I listen to from any podcast or just seems to take up this one part of it, and I agree that without the rest of it, it can seem questionable. Let’s talk about the whole picture. Lastly, perhaps we could have a discussion about the difference between focusing on the measures of consumption versus focusing on the measures of production and GDP alone is not an adequate measure of that. I can’t speak for any other voters, but I know that if I was presented the opportunity to make more money and as a part of that, it meant, I had to spend more money to buy US but and be able to afford it. I’m gonna make that choice. all the rhetoric for the last 20 years has been about how we can be better consumers and buy more with less. I’d rather buy more from my own country with more.
Thank you for the question but I don’t feel I’m qualified. The best I could do is suggest that you watch the Tucker Carlson episode where he interviews the treasury secretary. All I can say is it made sense to me but I would certainly hate to hack it up by trying to pass it along.
One of the issues I would like Glenn to discuss is what he thinks will happen in a two-party system where both parties chuck out basic market principles. I think the audience here rightly sees the overreach of the Dems on social issues has left it in bad shape. But what happens if Trump strips the Republicans of their (not entirely deserved) public perception as the party of fiscal conservatism?
It's been condensed down into "DEI and trans" issues, but they were really out of step on those two. Like on immigration, Ruy Teixeira notes the Dems kept claiming the 20 side on 80-20 issues.
I would also toss in general censoriousness on social media for opponent's views that required misinformation officials (I'm not sure what you would call them). Mike Pesca called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party.
Claiming that it was racist to say university enrollment programs that disadvantaged Asians were bad and illegal.
And I would agree with below on student loan forgiveness. Such an awful way to tell the majority of Americans who don't go to college who the party is looking out for.
Student loan forgiveness: Using district courts to up end the executive; to name two
I don’t pay enough attention to fully enumerate the abuses.
One thing that is obvious to me. Nearly every elected official fails to honor their oath to uphold the constitution. Are sanctuary cities constitutional?
Well as a normal joe, I am worried about spending. How long till the government goes bankrupt?
Ok. So Trump is an ass. This constant hysteria about him becoming a dictator is simply insane. All he does is EO’s. The next clown that takes control of the executive will simply retract all these orders and institute an opposing slate of mandates. I point to the millions of illegals now living in the US.
I think after the 2020 election drama, some people are afraid there won’t be a “next guy”. I agree that is a little ridiculous if for no other reason that Trump is pretty old.
I think the risk is the damage he’s doing to the institutions that provide the stable structure that supports us being a strong, rich, powerful nation. If you remove capable bureaucrats and replace them with sycophantic flunkies, then the federal government will be corrupt and ineffective (if you think it already is, you haven’t seen anything yet). If we accept that the Constitution is optional, we will not have all the legal protections we expect (I know we were not perfect before). If we stop investing in basic science/medical research we won’t be a science/medical leader in a decade or two. If we damage the social safety net, that will be catastrophic for poor people, especially older and sicker ones. If we make Universities no longer the “envy of the world” we are going to lose all the world’s best and brightest wanting to come here. If we disrupt trade too much, and enough entities stop holding US Dollars, and then we will be very screwed. We are really lucky to live here where the country is pretty stable, that doesn’t mean it always will be or always has to be. And once the system is torn down, it will be a lot harder than issuing some executive orders to get it back, if that is even possible.
Capable bureaucrats like Lois Lerner and a DOJ that proposed the sweetheart deal for Hunter?
Institutions like the media and universities? I received graduate level instruction in Physics at the University of VA. It is nothing like I experienced years ago. I terminated my alumni association with UVA 8 years ago.
Personally, I think you are pining for an America that no longer exists. Did you note Biden increase the federal budget by nearly 50% in one year. With our existing financial outlook, disaster is our destiny.
I actually read that report about Lois Lerner and the issue was that the statute and the agency’s implementing recommendations were different in their wording/guidance on how much political advocacy could be done by an organization and still be considered a tax exempt organization under that part of the law. She didn’t actually do anything particularly wrong, it was just marketed as such. As for Hunter Biden, his “sweetheart” deal was pretty run of the mill for a first offender, as I understand. He didn’t actually get it though, because he was not going to be assured it was all over. There is no good evidence that he was actually involved in the worst accusations. Is that the best you have? You realize how big the federal government is, right?
UVA has gone a bit over-woke. The suggestion of taking TJ out of UVA is just too much. I fail to see how that means we should defund medical research at Harvard. That is just short sighted. If you studied physics at the graduate level, you no doubt benefited from all kinds of federal investments, from DOE to DOD to NSF etc. Do you really believe those investments aren’t worth it because of the excesses of gender studies?
My guess is I can anticipate your reply (I wonder why). Why don’t you tackle the question of our previous president’s competence. Our august institutions certainly worked to insure he was fully capable of executing his job responsibilities.
You didn’t defend the media. As for Lois, if you believe she acted to “protect our institutions” you employ logic I don’t consider valid.
The one and only selling point for Joe Biden was that he wasn't Donald Trump. He was basically just a guy in a chair over a big bureaucracy. He didn't try to make any fundamental changes. I liked the Chips Act and Inflation Reduction Act just fine. He acted like the head of a big organization, not like an out-of-control king. Do I agree with all the things he did? No of course not.
No, I do not defend the media. They are doing a terrible job.
No, Lois Lerner was not "protecting our institutions", I think she was just trying to do her job. She got it wrong, but it wasn't some big conspiracy. Most people make mistakes in their jobs all the time, even if they are perfectly good at their jobs in general. The organizations all got their status, it was just delayed for a few months and they got some possibly intrusive questions that they never had to answer. Just because people get themselves whipped up into a frenzy doesn't mean they were reasonable in getting so upset... I'm sure you can see that on the left. It is just as true on the right.
Indeed. I'd like to see economists investigate whether or not there is a correlation between massive deficit spending and massive wealth accumulation in the counties surrounding Washington, DC.
However, I must admit I was shocked, shocked to learn a president was trying to put pressure on a FRB chairman to cut interest rates.
As a professional libertarian ;-) and amateur Constitutional scholar, I confess I don't see an "Article 3.5 Other Branch of Government". I think I agree: Congress has no power to create an "independent" agency -- it has to go under one of the three.
I also think that Madison etal. would have strenuously objected to the idea of an agency of government with any significant powers that was not subject to the control of the other three. For all their distrust of democracy, I think they would have distrusted an entrenched administrative state -- outside popular control -- even more.
Look - I hate --- no, I FEAR -- how strong our federal government is. But to act like this power wasn't built up by both parties, starting at least as far back as FDR, is to ignore history. Do I want Trump with massive powers? No. But neither do I want independent agencies with those powers. I want those powers curtailed, eliminated, and returned to the states and the people.
Ross and Glenn politely wonder what the president's intention might be, as if they are speaking about an educated person with a rational plan. I suggest that the two of you are too polite to publicly acknowledge what has been unfolding in front of our eyes since 1980. There is an abundance of evidence to tell you exactly what the intention is. Self enrichment, ego gratification, and domination. Any human being that cannot see the abundance of this evidence has no eyes.
Concurrent with these intentions are blaming all failures upon other people.
Sadly, the political process will be too slow to save our nation from the malevolent steamroller that we've seen in operation for 100 days. Half of the country was stupid enough to say "what the hell, let's give him another shot, he was on TV after all!"
The nation may never recover, and the national and international economies will likely not recover in our lifetimes. So you guys go ahead and be polite with one another and employ all of the euphemisms you can muster and let's all witness history in the making.
To Glenn’s comment that Trump told people what he was going to do and people voted for him, my 78 yr old Mom and Aunt - intelligent, not former factory workers (an RN and mid level manager) voted for Trump, again, did not do any deep thinking about anything you folks are talking about. Their oft- expressed concerns: price of eggs/inflation, transgender bathrooms, and a handful of other Fox and newsmax talking points. Now Mom is worried about her SS and Medicare. Still no loss of faith in Trump or MAGA.
Glen, While I’ve come to appreciate your voice on many issues and respect your willingness to be vulnerable by going public, today’s podcast was annoying at best. Your anguish about “how did we get here” really ticks me off. Yes, there were legitimate issues that could cause one to doubt the democrats, but in my view, a significant reason for “ how we got here” is because influential people like you and republicans in congress didn’t speak up when the lies about voter fraud were being embraced, immigration concerns misrepresented, and the extremes of Project 2025 talked about. While many, many people were predicting this chaos, you were quite proudly, in your words, “rolling the dice.” I’ve grown to respect you a lot, but for heaven’s sake, take some responsibility for your contribution about “how we got here.”
When an expert (PhD) keeps bringing up "uncertainty" it tells me he admits that whatever he learned in earning his PhD, that learning did not help him in dealing with this "uncertainty". In plain English his PhD is worse than useless.
I started taking notes at the beginning but I gave up - the dude was not prepared. Does he talk that haltingly in his classroom (if yes, I would walk out and withdraw from the course.)
You both 'mailed it in', I'm disappointed.
Mr. Levine talks of all the risks with mentioning the extraordinary debt left by the previous administration. We have been “rolled” the last 30yrs. On trade. I’m very pleased we are calling in our chips!
Bill Doubek
Trump admin 1 put on most debt ever.
Is this another one of those "trust the experts" moments?
Nah. This is let the guy with multiple business bankruptcies make the decision.
Even Thomas Sowell thinks a varying tariff policy is a losing idea.
I am willing to give our institutional economics/financial experts all the credit they deserve. But I am not willing to let them get away with putting the responsibility for their decades of fiscal mismanagement on Trump. Our economy was headed over the cliff before Trump took office the first time. Trump is the first person in DC to NOT kick the can down the road.
When you are racing toward a cliff, jamb on the brakes! Trump gets that. The plethora of inbred experts stomping on the gas pedal do not.
What cliff was our economy headed over? Do you mean the debt? Because if so, that is really just the last 25 years, and Trump has not done and has no plans to actually do anything to reduce it.
"...just the last 25 years..."
How long does it have to go on, how bad does it have to get, before you think it's a problem?
Will Trump fix this mess, and how long will it take? I don't know. But he is the first president in decades even TRY to address it.
That's what I was saying, and that's what I meant.
My point was if it has been a problem for a mere 25 years we can fix it. I don’t think that Congress has even once in that time followed the budget process and passed each of the budgets on time. I believe Congress, as the appropriators, should do their jobs.
I don’t know if you remember this, but under Obama we tried to get the budget under control for a minute. But it will probably mean cutting spending and raising taxes and that is very unpopular.
I saw a breakdown that I thought was illustrative. The debt is primarily from Bush’s tax rebates, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, dealing with the banking crisis, Trump’s tax cuts and Covid spending, (and then the Chip act and the inflation Reduction Act, though they were *actually* supposed to pay for themselves for the most part over time). So, that means our debt is wars, tax cuts, and handouts in a crisis (a high percent to rich companies at the expense of the little guy.). Meanwhile the number of billionaires has increased ridiculously.
Our debt is now pretty much what it was after WWII as a percent of GDP. We should go back to 1950s tax rates, where the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90%. The 1950s was a pretty good time economically for your average Americans. But instead… Trump wants to cut taxes to the richest Americans, slash the Government's investments in the future, destabilize trade and banking, etc.
And in any event it is Congress who needs to fix this, not the President.
We were hugely in debt after WWII. We had just fought the most expensive war ever; all expense, no income. To say that we are no more in debt now than we were then is to say that we have way too much debt. But WWII was a good reason to go into debt. We have no such excuse now. It's just horrid mismanagement.
Trump's tax legislation lowers taxes to all Americans. No honest person has ever told you different. If it doesn't pass, YOUR taxes will go up.
Apparently, you aren't aware that the Inflation Reduction Act was a BIDEN law, and its directly responsible for Biden's 25% inflation during his term. Not Trump, Biden.
As for "...slashing the Government's investments in the future...", are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Is the problem that the government overspends, or that it doesn't spend enough? Do you think that spending money is automatically the same as a good investment? Our increased standard of living is a direct result of private investment, and only a little of government investment. That tells me that we should keep as much money in the private sector as possible.
Okay, I get it you like Trump.
Investments are good, some spending is an investment, some is just spending. I am willing to spend or even borrow to make investments. I don’t think across the board tax cuts (that you benefit more from if you pay more in taxes.) count as an investment.
I’d be happy to pay more in taxes to be in better fiscal shape.
In a sense, all spending is an investment. If you buy a pair of socks, you are supporting the company that makes socks, and they are paying employees to make them.
Somehow you seem to think that governments accomplish more with the money they collect on taxes than people could or would do with their own money if the government hadn't taken it. Based on what? In my decades of experience, nobody wastes money like governments waste money.
Doesn’t he plan to extend tax cuts? And with rates going up to compensate for the incremental risk US is viewed as accruing that will add massively to the debt. So Trump is doing 2 things that are going to vastly increase the debt. So please explain how he is doing something about the debt.
One more time, economics is not a zero sum game. If I hand you ten dollars, that is a zero sum: ten dollars before and ten dollars after.
But if I use my ten dollars to buy materials to create something that is worth twenty dollars, then I have, in essence, created money. I have turned ten dollars into twenty dollars.
That is what free markets and capitalism strive to do. It doesn't always work according to plan, but the only reason we are as wealthy as we are is because of that concept. Don't think you're wealthy? Check on what life was like before the industrial revolution. Average people today live better than rich people then.
Money paid in taxes is notoriously wasted on zero sum transactions, while money kept in free markets multiplies money better than any other system that has ever existed.
Will Trump's efforts be fantastically successful? We'll see. But I see them working far better for everyone than the governmental economic 'system' that has put every one of us in over $100,000 dollars in debt.
p.s. Historically, when taxes are reduced, the economy advances, and even governments get more money. If that seems impossible to you, you've had the wrong econ teachers.
That was not my point. If you were focused on the debt, which I thought was your or a min focus, that’s about to go up by what T is proposing. If that is you main concern, his proposals are not likely to satisfy you.
Well, now I REALLY don't get your point.
One more time, AGAIN. Yes, the government can reduce the debt by lowering taxes, and increase the debt by raising them. That's generally the case.
Thank you for the comment about chickens. Also, thanks to your guest for bringing in the woke angle. These things are all related and that’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s an observable demonstrable fact. in fact the woke agenda is used to create a sense of inadequacy and guilt against which larger government can be enacted in order to soothe that guilt and open borders bring in more people that the left can label as victims and also future voters. Also, if you have another one of these discussions, perhaps you and your guest could talk about the whole policy. The treasury secretary lays out very clearly. The tariffs are one part of the strategy that tax relief, cheap energy, etc., are part of an integrated strategy. Every Show or podcast I listen to from any podcast or just seems to take up this one part of it, and I agree that without the rest of it, it can seem questionable. Let’s talk about the whole picture. Lastly, perhaps we could have a discussion about the difference between focusing on the measures of consumption versus focusing on the measures of production and GDP alone is not an adequate measure of that. I can’t speak for any other voters, but I know that if I was presented the opportunity to make more money and as a part of that, it meant, I had to spend more money to buy US but and be able to afford it. I’m gonna make that choice. all the rhetoric for the last 20 years has been about how we can be better consumers and buy more with less. I’d rather buy more from my own country with more.
Thank you for the question but I don’t feel I’m qualified. The best I could do is suggest that you watch the Tucker Carlson episode where he interviews the treasury secretary. All I can say is it made sense to me but I would certainly hate to hack it up by trying to pass it along.
Can you explain the math?
If you raise tariffs, you impact middle and low income families.
Higher tariffs would lead to lower consumer spending resulting in lower government income from the tariffs.
The lower tariff income would make it difficult for the government to lower taxes because government revenue is decreased.
One of the issues I would like Glenn to discuss is what he thinks will happen in a two-party system where both parties chuck out basic market principles. I think the audience here rightly sees the overreach of the Dems on social issues has left it in bad shape. But what happens if Trump strips the Republicans of their (not entirely deserved) public perception as the party of fiscal conservatism?
What do you see as overreaches on the Left?
It's been condensed down into "DEI and trans" issues, but they were really out of step on those two. Like on immigration, Ruy Teixeira notes the Dems kept claiming the 20 side on 80-20 issues.
I would also toss in general censoriousness on social media for opponent's views that required misinformation officials (I'm not sure what you would call them). Mike Pesca called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party.
Claiming that it was racist to say university enrollment programs that disadvantaged Asians were bad and illegal.
And I would agree with below on student loan forgiveness. Such an awful way to tell the majority of Americans who don't go to college who the party is looking out for.
isn’t plain-clothes jack booted thugs putting people in shackles a bigger threat? They don’t produce warrants or badges.
Why should I trust people who remove photos of Black icons? All I feel is that I am your next target.
Student loan forgiveness: Using district courts to up end the executive; to name two
I don’t pay enough attention to fully enumerate the abuses.
One thing that is obvious to me. Nearly every elected official fails to honor their oath to uphold the constitution. Are sanctuary cities constitutional?
Well as a normal joe, I am worried about spending. How long till the government goes bankrupt?
Ok. So Trump is an ass. This constant hysteria about him becoming a dictator is simply insane. All he does is EO’s. The next clown that takes control of the executive will simply retract all these orders and institute an opposing slate of mandates. I point to the millions of illegals now living in the US.
I think after the 2020 election drama, some people are afraid there won’t be a “next guy”. I agree that is a little ridiculous if for no other reason that Trump is pretty old.
I think the risk is the damage he’s doing to the institutions that provide the stable structure that supports us being a strong, rich, powerful nation. If you remove capable bureaucrats and replace them with sycophantic flunkies, then the federal government will be corrupt and ineffective (if you think it already is, you haven’t seen anything yet). If we accept that the Constitution is optional, we will not have all the legal protections we expect (I know we were not perfect before). If we stop investing in basic science/medical research we won’t be a science/medical leader in a decade or two. If we damage the social safety net, that will be catastrophic for poor people, especially older and sicker ones. If we make Universities no longer the “envy of the world” we are going to lose all the world’s best and brightest wanting to come here. If we disrupt trade too much, and enough entities stop holding US Dollars, and then we will be very screwed. We are really lucky to live here where the country is pretty stable, that doesn’t mean it always will be or always has to be. And once the system is torn down, it will be a lot harder than issuing some executive orders to get it back, if that is even possible.
Capable bureaucrats like Lois Lerner and a DOJ that proposed the sweetheart deal for Hunter?
Institutions like the media and universities? I received graduate level instruction in Physics at the University of VA. It is nothing like I experienced years ago. I terminated my alumni association with UVA 8 years ago.
Personally, I think you are pining for an America that no longer exists. Did you note Biden increase the federal budget by nearly 50% in one year. With our existing financial outlook, disaster is our destiny.
I actually read that report about Lois Lerner and the issue was that the statute and the agency’s implementing recommendations were different in their wording/guidance on how much political advocacy could be done by an organization and still be considered a tax exempt organization under that part of the law. She didn’t actually do anything particularly wrong, it was just marketed as such. As for Hunter Biden, his “sweetheart” deal was pretty run of the mill for a first offender, as I understand. He didn’t actually get it though, because he was not going to be assured it was all over. There is no good evidence that he was actually involved in the worst accusations. Is that the best you have? You realize how big the federal government is, right?
UVA has gone a bit over-woke. The suggestion of taking TJ out of UVA is just too much. I fail to see how that means we should defund medical research at Harvard. That is just short sighted. If you studied physics at the graduate level, you no doubt benefited from all kinds of federal investments, from DOE to DOD to NSF etc. Do you really believe those investments aren’t worth it because of the excesses of gender studies?
My guess is I can anticipate your reply (I wonder why). Why don’t you tackle the question of our previous president’s competence. Our august institutions certainly worked to insure he was fully capable of executing his job responsibilities.
You didn’t defend the media. As for Lois, if you believe she acted to “protect our institutions” you employ logic I don’t consider valid.
The one and only selling point for Joe Biden was that he wasn't Donald Trump. He was basically just a guy in a chair over a big bureaucracy. He didn't try to make any fundamental changes. I liked the Chips Act and Inflation Reduction Act just fine. He acted like the head of a big organization, not like an out-of-control king. Do I agree with all the things he did? No of course not.
No, I do not defend the media. They are doing a terrible job.
No, Lois Lerner was not "protecting our institutions", I think she was just trying to do her job. She got it wrong, but it wasn't some big conspiracy. Most people make mistakes in their jobs all the time, even if they are perfectly good at their jobs in general. The organizations all got their status, it was just delayed for a few months and they got some possibly intrusive questions that they never had to answer. Just because people get themselves whipped up into a frenzy doesn't mean they were reasonable in getting so upset... I'm sure you can see that on the left. It is just as true on the right.
So what institutions are you saying uphold our institutions? Your characterization of Biden’s presidency makes me wonder if we even need a president. As for your defense of Lerner, you expose your partisan tendencies. Even the WaPo disagrees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-top-irs-officials-knew-in-2011-that-conservative-groups-were-targeted/2013/05/11/2619face-ba7b-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html
Indeed. I'd like to see economists investigate whether or not there is a correlation between massive deficit spending and massive wealth accumulation in the counties surrounding Washington, DC.
However, I must admit I was shocked, shocked to learn a president was trying to put pressure on a FRB chairman to cut interest rates.
Is your final sentence a joke?
Yeah, that's a line from the movie "Casablanca." I am shocked, shocked to find out gambling was going on in that establishment.
That's the way I take it.